Textbook on elementary set theory that includes all proofs NB: I have read the earlier post Textbooks on set theory, but the information in that post is not sufficiently specific to answer my question here.

To put it somewhat glibly, I am looking for a book that does for elementary set theory what Edmund Landau's Foundations of Analysis does for analysis.
In other words, I am looking for a book on elementary set theory that explicitly proves everything it asserts, no matter how obvious the assertion or how tedious, or "routine", the proof.
Such a book not only avoids "proofs" such as "obvious", "routine", "exercise" but also the likes of "by induction on $\alpha$", or "proof sketches" in general.
As for coverage, the book should at least cover ordinals and cardinals, and, especially, their respective arithmetics.

EDIT:  Since this post has received nothing approaching an answer, I think it is in order to relax the requirements somewhat.  Please regard the description above as "an ideal to strive for," and propose candidates that you consider approach it most closely.
 A: My recommendation is G Takeuti, WM Zaring: Introduction to axiomatic set theory. while they are not proving everything, this book is written as a list of theorems, definitions, claims and of course, lot's of proofs.
as i stated before, there are some proofs that are left to the reader, but the percentage is very low.
right at the beginning of the book the writers are stating what are the language symbols, the logical axioms and rules of inference they are using, and after which in the next few pages you can find statements with one line proof's.
at the beginning of the book they are not skipping any proof of any statement, you will encounter the sentence "the proof is left for the reader" just about in the middle of the book, at this time i was felling pretty confidence in my knowledge to complete those proof's.
if you will read the book, you will find pages filled with consecutive statements and their proof, one after another without an intuition or any explanation beside the proof it self.
may I add that most of the proofs are formal proofs, so there is no non obvious skipping of some steps in the proofs.
hope it helps.
